JUDGMENT 1. - The present case is one of the series of cases which demonstrates the way of functioning of the Prosecuting Agency even in serious criminal cases. The petitioner is facing trial alongwith two other co-accused for the offence under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota. Out of three accused, one Shafi Mohammed was released on bail by this court vide order dated June 5, 1992 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 756/92. The accusation against the petitioner and the co-accused is that they were found in possession of 28 kg. 900 Grams of opium, which was being transported in a truck. The truck was being driven by the co-accused Shafi Mohammed and the petitioner was one of the occupants in the truck. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 22.3.1991 and twenty six months have passed since his arrest, but only three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Counsel argued that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for the inordinate delay and an accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period, especially when the prosecuting agency was negligent in not examining the witnesses in time. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there has been an inordinate delay in the trial, but according to him the petitioner is facing trial for an offence under the Act, which is a serious offence against the society. He submits that in such cases delay in the trial should not be a ground to release the accused on bail. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. The factual position is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 22.3.1991. It is also not in dispute that Shafi Mohammed was released on bail vide order dated June 5,1992 of this Court. The charges were framed against the accused on 6.2.1992. The various order-sheets of the proceedings of the trial Court were read over to me and they reveal that the case was being tried in a casual manner unmindful of the fact that the accused persons are in jail. The charges were framed against the accused on 6.2.1992. The various order-sheets of the proceedings of the trial Court were read over to me and they reveal that the case was being tried in a casual manner unmindful of the fact that the accused persons are in jail. Neither the Prosecuting Officer has shown any interest to see that the prosecution witnesses are examined in time, nor their trial Judge has taken effective steps to procure the attendance to complete the trial expeditiously. The order-sheets dated 6.3.92, 3.4.92, 2.5.92 and 225.92 show that prosecution witnesses did not turn up on any date and no effective step was taken by the Prosecuting Officer or the trial Court for securing the attendance of the witnesses. On 22.5.92 next dates were fixed July 24 and 25,1992 for recording prosecution evidence. On 24.7.92 it was noticed that the co-accused Shafi Mohammed was in judicial custody and was not present in Court. Hence a direction was given to summon him through Production Warrant. However, the Production Warrant was not issued by the office of the Court as such statement of the witnesses could not be recorded. On this date, three witnesses, namely; K.S. Murti, Shivraj Singh and Bhism Dev were present. The Special Public Prosecutor left the witnesses K.S. Murti an Shivraj Singh from being examined in the case. For the statement of Bhism Dev witness next date was fixed as 2.9.92. The remaining witnesses were also ordered to be summoned on 2.9.92 as Production Warrant was not issued by the office of the Court, the witnesses present on that day, could not be examined. The next date was fixed as 6.11.92. On this date, two witnesses, namely; Purshottam (PW 1) and Banjrang (PW 2) were examined. No other witness was present and the next date was fixed as 15.12.92. On this date also, no witness was present and the case was again adjourned to 16.2.93. On 16.2.93 PW 3 Bhism Dev was examined, other witnesses were not present and the next date was fixed as 26.3.93. On 26.3.93, no witness was present and the next date was fixed as 10.5.93. On 10.5.93 also no witness has been examined. 5. The above proceedings demonstrate that neither the prosecuting agency was keen to examine the witnesses in time, nor the learned trial judge was sensible to take effective steps to procure the attendance of the witnesses. On 26.3.93, no witness was present and the next date was fixed as 10.5.93. On 10.5.93 also no witness has been examined. 5. The above proceedings demonstrate that neither the prosecuting agency was keen to examine the witnesses in time, nor the learned trial judge was sensible to take effective steps to procure the attendance of the witnesses. It also appears that the learned trial Judge has granted long adjournment in the case. He should be aware of the General Rules (Criminal), which require that once a sessions trial is opened, it should be disposed of in the same session and should not be adjourned to next session. It further requires that sessions case is taken day to day till all the witnesses in attendance are examined and discharged. The Presiding Officer has also to be vigilant to take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary the Superintendent of Police of the District may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 43 of the General Rules (Criminal). 6. Unfortunately, the above Rule was observed more in breach by the trial Court. No accountability was ever felt for the completion of the trial expeditiously. This Court has issued instructions/directions from time to time, through various judgments, for the trial court to take effective steps for the completion of the sessions trial in which the accused are in jail and unnecessarily and long adjournments be not given. Such directions too have made no effect on the functioning. 7. In such a sorry state of affair an accused cannot be kept in jail, for indefinite period. 8. In view of the above facts, I have been left with no option but to release the petitioner on bail. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Babe Bhai S/o Shri Daud Khan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs.Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Babe Bhai S/o Shri Daud Khan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rs.Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with stipulation to appear before that Court or any other court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case and subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not repeat similar offence in future; (ii) that he will file an undertaking in the trial court to appear in court on all subsequent dates of hearing : If he violates any of the conditions, the learned trial Court shall be free to cancel his bail in accordance with law. 9. Before parting with this, I would like to express that the Director Prosecution also owes some duty to see that the sessions trials, in which accused are in jail are completed without delay and efforts are taken by the trial judges in the spirit of Rule 43 of the General Rules (Criminal). He should collect informations in this connection and take necessary action. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the Director Prosecution. He should report to the court as to what steps are being taken by him for early completion of criminal trials in which the accused are in jail. The report should reach to the office within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order and it should be placed before me by the Registry.Bail granted. *******